I know a doctor who decided to add chiropracty to his set of skills. He did the cross-over course, and learned all about chiropractic manipulation. He was financially very successful. Lots of patients and lots of $$$$$

He started to get concerned, though, as a result of his mistakes. He did not always manage to do the manipulations correctly, and was very aware when he did the wrong thing. What he found, though, was that it did not matter. The results were just as good. He then did something a bit unethical. He deliberately altered the manipulations. So a person in for headache might be given the manipulation for backache. Results were just the same. Chiropracty works equally well no matter how you do it.

landrew wrote:... Oh, right. Quackwatch is the fair and impartial source of all truth.

Okay, go to that site and tell us how many posts are substantially in error. You could be the first to pass that test. But, you will fail, quackwatch is supported by science.

I can doubt everything you present just like you doubt everything I present. We could play that game forever, but let's be adults.

Fraud laws exist to bust dishonest doctors and dishonest chiropractors. TV psychics are put out of business, scam artists, televangelists and even crooked financial investors get caught. But I'm not aware of the whole profession of Chiropractic ever having been in the crosshairs of the fraud squad. It's mainly Big Pharma that has the bug up they're ass about it. It's easy to understand why they wouldn't want the competition; they want to be the only game in town, and competition and alternatives aren't good for profits.

The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

landrew wrote:An honest doctor will tell you that the chiropractors warned them years ago that the overuse of antibiotics would lead to serious problems with antibiotic resistance.

Penicillin went into widespread use in the middle of 1942 or early 1943, after the Coconut Grove fire of '42. Stuart B. Levy "The Antibiotic Paradox" 2nd ed. (Perseus, 2002) p. 7 notes that penicillin's discoverer (Alexander Fleming, not a chiropractor) warned about overuse causing resistance in 1945.

landrew wrote:An honest doctor will tell you that the chiropractors warned them years ago that the overuse of antibiotics would lead to serious problems with antibiotic resistance.

Penicillin went into widespread use in the middle of 1942 or early 1943, after the Coconut Grove fire of '42. Stuart B. Levy "The Antibiotic Paradox" 2nd ed. (Perseus, 2002) p. 7 notes that penicillin's discoverer (Alexander Fleming, not a chiropractor) warned about overuse causing resistance in 1945.

Here it is, again. Or, can you cite a source earlier than 1945?

Too bad nobody listened to him for about 40 years.

The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

So, you concede that chiros were not the first to warn about the potential for antibiotic resistance. Now you need to provide evidence that brauny's doctor friend is mistaken about getting the message in the 1960s in med school (less than 40 years after Fleming's warning in 1945).

Lawyers have an adage: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law, when you can't dispute the law, dispute the facts, and when you cannot discredit either, just argue.

You keep embarrassing yourself by defining "science" (analogous to "law") differently than actual scientists, and manufacturing "facts" that you cannot support, and then just arguing.

So, you concede that chiros were not the first to warn about the potential for antibiotic resistance. Now you need to provide evidence that brauny's doctor friend is mistaken about getting the message in the 1960s in med school (less than 40 years after Fleming's warning in 1945).

Lawyers have an adage: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law, when you can't dispute the law, dispute the facts, and when you cannot discredit either, just argue.

You keep embarrassing yourself by defining "science" (analogous to "law") differently than actual scientists, and manufacturing "facts" that you cannot support, and then just arguing.

Religion is designed to provide answers.Science is designed to ask questions.Law is designed to find a verdict.

I don't see the commonality, do you?

The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

So, you concede that chiros were not the first to warn about the potential for antibiotic resistance. Now you need to provide evidence that brauny's doctor friend is mistaken about getting the message in the 1960s in med school (less than 40 years after Fleming's warning in 1945).

Lawyers have an adage: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law, when you can't dispute the law, dispute the facts, and when you cannot discredit either, just argue.

You keep embarrassing yourself by defining "science" (analogous to "law") differently than actual scientists, and manufacturing "facts" that you cannot support, and then just arguing.

Religion is designed to provide answers.Science is designed to ask questions.Law is designed to find a verdict.

I don't see the commonality, do you?

Follow the money:

Religion is designed to collect money.Science is designed to ask for money.Law is designed to sue for money.

"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

"When Kristi Bedenbaugh wanted relief from a bad sinus headache, the 24 year-old former beauty queen and medical office administrator made the mistake of consulting a chiropractor. An autopsy performed on Kristi revealed that the manipulation of her neck had split the inner walls of both vertebral arteries, resulting in a fatal stroke.

The chiropractor’s violent twisting of her neck caused the torn arterial walls to balloon and block the blood supply to the posterior portion of her brain. Studies confirmed that the blood clots formed on the two days she received her neck adjustments. "

Lance Kennedy wrote:... The chiropractor’s violent twisting of her neck caused the torn arterial walls to balloon and block the blood supply to the posterior portion of her brain. Studies confirmed that the blood clots formed on the two days she received her neck adjustments. "[/i]

Most of those articles cite original literature. You need to realize that we are experts on research; whereas chiros are experts on tooth fairies (subluxations and Innate Intelligence). Even if you claim that you don't follow such notions, that is the backbone of your "education" and it doesn't leave room for much else. Go ahead, show us anything that I deem as valid which you can discredit.

Of course, you can provide what YOU deem valid evidence in the original literature for chiro outside of possible help in low back pain. Your claims for that intractable condition are less tenuous than your other claims. We already know that claim might be reliable (as long as it doesn't involve a neck snap). Your claims for that condition are less tenuous than your other claims.

The dynamic chiropractic article you cite is from 2005 that references an article from 1988.

CONCLUSION: VBA stroke is a very rare event in the population. The increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke. We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204390

This is from 2008.

You use outdated research to come to an inaccurate conclusion.

Samuel Homola, DC, has produced an incisive guide to chiropractic's history, benefits, and shortcomings. The book covers both positive and negative aspects. Edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., the 280-page ...

anyone in bed with s. barrett has an agenda and can't be taken seriously

Because of the tortuous route of the vertebral arteries where they thread through the transverse processes of the first cervical vertebra and then make a sharp turn to travel behind the atlas and enter the skull through the foramen magnum, head and neck rotation forced by manual manipulation should not exceed 45 or 50 degrees if kinking or traumatic dissection of these arteries is to be avoided.

So how is it that normal cervical rotation is 80 degrees?

No consideration is given to the possibility that many strokes caused by neck manipulation may go unreported. When patients seek medical care for paralytic symptoms caused by release of a blood clot that was formed days or weeks earlier by neck manipulation, for example, a connection between neck manipulation and stroke may not be made. Such strokes may then be reported by primary care physicians who are unaware of preceding trauma caused by neck manipulation, thus sparing chiropractors of any blame.

isn't this a pretty big reach - really - it is making the assumption that the manipulation is harmful and making the rest of the story fit this assumption

this article is very biased by a biased doctor in league with a biased MD - great reference to prove a point there

The "quackbuster" organization is learning a very HARD lesson about the reality of the US legal system. And, I'm very pleased.

They're learning, in the most humiliating, and financially devastating way, that US Courts don't want the system abused to harass those that the "quackbusters" don't like.

In the Barrett v. Clark case, today, an order was issued for Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to come up with a grand total of $433,715.93 in bonds - $264,311.68 for Polevoy alone, and $169,404.25 from Barret and Polevoy - within thirty days. Barrett runs the questionable website "quackwatch.com." Polevoy is kind of the Canadian low-budget copy of Barrett, with garish colors.

Item 1 - Deposition of Stephen Barrett, MDThe NCAHF recently attacked Dr. Shari Lieberman, RD, PhD, a nutritionist and exercise physiologist in New York. Two of Dr. Jarvis' fellow NCAHF board members defamed Dr. Lieberman, again without the benefit of sound science or material facts. Those NCAHF board members, Dr. Stephen Barrett and Ira Milner, RD, testified against Dr. Lieberman at a hearing they themselves instigated before the American Dietetic Association (ADA) which resulted in the ADA publicly stripping Dr. Lieberman of her registered dietitian (RD) credential. As you would imagine, this caused her loss of prestige and credibility, hurt her financially, and caused her public humiliation. In their testimony to the ADA, the two represented themselves to be knowledgeable about several specific aspects of nutrition science, yet neither had academic training nor publication in those specific areas.

In the end, after the falsity of their charges came to light, the ADA reinstated Dr. Leiberman's RD credential and published a statement noting same in the ADA's Journal and Courier.

As the attached transcript from the Barrett deposition indicates, NCAHF is a loose cannon that poses distinct liability risks for the University. Under cross examination, Dr. Barrett admitted that he was not in fact, an expert in nutrition science, describing himself instead as an expert in 'consumer strategy' and a "journalist.' This deposition clearly showed that Dr. Barrett did not have a thorough grounding in the scientific research relevant to the serious charges he made against Dr. Lieberman that caused her substantial harm.

Barrett retired from his psychiatric practice in 1993 to devote himself full time to quackbusting. Along the way, he honed his communication skills and now considers himself an investigative journalist taking full advantage of the power of the Internet. "Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media," he says. "Today I am the media."

Well, Stephen Barrett, The leader of Quackswatch, finally got his 15 minutesof fame. There is an article about him, right where it belongs, in last week's Peoplemagazine-1/25/99 . Barrett is quacking out loud in the article. "Not everyone agrees, Chiropractors, especially, have taken exception tohis jabs. 'He is so biased that it goes beyond common sense, ' says Dr.Edward Maurer.........'He's using his credentials as a vehicle to become aself-appointed vigilante committee of one.' " "...And last April he helped a 9-year-old Colorado girl, Emily Rosa,publish the results of her now famous study that found that touch therapists --who claim to detect human energy fields --could not demonstrate their purportedskills in a controlled experiment..." He of couse did not mention that thischild was the daughter of one of his co-vigilantes and the study was a secondgrade sproject.(1.)"American's growing reliance on alternative medicine ('Most things withthat label don't work,' he says) will surely keep Barrett busy, and he looksforward to the thrill of the chase. 'This is a combination of work and play, 'he says of his determination to detect and expose....." What next, a movie ofthe week? Homer Simpson could play the lead.

No, Ronnie, you have not. You have only cited quack literature. That only suits people who believe in subluxations, Innate Intelligence and the tooth fairy. Actually, there is more evidence for the tooth fairy since I used to leave a baby-tooth, that fell out, under my pillow and woke up to find a dime in its place.